CHAPTER FIVE Source Theory and the Philosophy of Religion WRS and MRS as systems We now consider the applicability of Source Theory and its basic concepts to other fields of philosophy. Since we deal with data and data processing in most spheres of life, it seems that we can apply Source Theory to a wide range of disciplines. For the present discussion, I will use only three examples, as stated in the introduction. One of the most appropriate applications of Source Theory is in the philoso- phy of religion. We have already discussed the Western Rational System (WRS) and the Monotheist Religious System (MRS), presented in Chapter Four, as examples of two different cultural systems. These two systems can provide us with an excellent test case for applying Source Theory since each one repre- sents an important, centuries-old tradition of thought, and they have consid- ered each other as rivals for much of this time. We will therefore use them in this chapter as a concrete example of the application of Source Theory to the philosophy of religion. For our purposes, WRS is the philosophical and scientific system that has been dominant in Western civilization at least since the nineteenth century, but its origins can be traced back to Greek philosophy. This system, in its mature form, evolved primarily in Christian cultures, and therefore still contains some religious remnants, but for our purposes we can consider these negligible, and see the entire system – at least as far as the ideal system is concerned – as secu- lar. We have already called it S(m8). The model of MRS that I will use here is roughly pertinent to Judaism, Chris- tianity and Islam (or at least the more traditionalist and anti-modernist move- ments in these religions), with greater emphasis on Judaism. Indeed, it is likely to fit many of the non-monotheist religions as well, but since I cannot discuss How to cite this book chapter: Brown, B 2017 Thoughts and Ways of Thinking: Source Theory and Its Applications. Pp. 73–102. London: Ubiquity Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/bbh.f. License: CC-BY 4.0 74 Thoughts and Ways of Thinking all of them here, I will confine myself to these three. These three traditions all accept the basic cognitive tools as truth sources, but add some testimonies: a text and its authorized interpreters. The adoption of the text and its author- ized interpreters thus becomes a first principle of any religious tradition, and entails the belief in all its dogmas (See Sofer 1841–1912, Volume 2: 356). In this respect, even if the text and its interpreters vary from one tradition to another, they all share the same type of model, and in this sense we can treat them as one for our purposes. This is what justifies talking about MRS as one system, even though in reality there has never been a single unified system including all three monotheist religions. A discussion with higher “resolution” would there- fore require a distinction between the three – MRS1, MRS2 and MRS3 – but for our discussion we will make do with MRS. We will denote its model as m7, and the system will therefore be denoted as S(m7). My main interest in this chapter is in the conflict between the reason-based and the religious systems (in this context I use the term reason in its broader sense, as representing rationality, i.e., the source model founded on the basic cognitive tools, and not the specific function mentioned in Chapter One). In its medieval version, this discord was known as the “reason-revelation conflict”; in its modern version, it has taken the form of the science-religion conflict; here we will consider both of them under the general title of the reason-religion conflict. When dealing with practical reason in particular, we may also call it the morality-religion conflict (with morality, in this context, referring to secu- lar-humanist morality). Indeed, even in antiquity there was tension between religion and philosophy, but it emerged sharply only during the Middle Ages, when it became one of the major topics of philosophy and religious rationalism. The main discord was in the descriptive realm, that is, on the issue of the conflict between the data about the world transmitted by the religious traditions and their canonical texts on the one hand, and the data transmitted by the basic cognitive tools on the other. One major question that occupied the medieval thinkers was whether the world is eternal or created. The religious traditions claimed that the world was created ex nihilo at a particular point in time, while the Aristotelian phi- losophers, who reigned in the field at that time, claimed that the world is eter- nal and has always been in existence. At present, the conflict centers around the question of creation versus evolution, as well as the issue of the age of the universe. The conflicts in the normative realm have become most intense in the modern age. Among these are the debates over euthanasia and abortion, as well as the status of women, members of other religions, and heretics. MRS and WRS are two great, wide-ranging systems with rich histories and glorious traditions. They differ from each other on a list of fundamental issues, but they also represent different ways of thinking. This insight is not only based on a source-theoretical analysis, but also accords with our empirically-based intuitions. We can often sense that purely religious people (if they exist at all Source Theory and the Philosophy of Religion 75 nowadays) “think differently” from purely rationalist people (if there have ever been any). Thus the root of the great differences between them is their sources or the division of labor among them. Here I will survey various approaches that have been put forward for dealing with these conflicts, and formulate them in terms of Source Theory. The various approaches include the rejection of religion, the rejection of reason, the double- faith theory with religious supremacy, the double-faith theory with rationalist supremacy, the separation theory with religious supremacy in the descriptive realm, the separation theory with religious supremacy in the normative realm (“orthopraxy”), and the double-truth theory (as distinguished from the “dou- ble-faith” theory). All these approaches are largely “ideal types”. In practice, people are more complex, with more contradictions and arbitrariness than the theoretical types. I will therefore change my method of presentation and cite a list of quotations from thinkers representing each of these approaches. These thinkers come from different periods and cultures, and each of them dealt differently with the reason-religion conflict. As we shall see, hardly any of these thinkers belongs purely to the type of theory he is supposed to represent, so I will allow myself to slightly simplify their ideas from time to time so as to sharpen them. At any rate, the discussion does not revolve around the views of the thinkers them- selves, but rather the ideal types that we will delineate with their assistance, even if some modifications are required. The adoption of reason and the rejection of religion The rejection of religion has been the approach of radical secular thinkers of all ages These thinkers adopt only the basic cognitive tools in the WRS model. If we call a typical member of this group a1, we can therefore say that a1 X::m8, i.e. that a1 exclusively adopts m8. Typical representatives of this approach are Baron d’Holbach and Bertrand Russell, who asserted that religion is based mainly on fear, while science liberates us from it. D’Holbach wrote: Savage and furious nations, perpetually at war, adore, under divers names, some God, conformable to their ideas, that is to say, cruel, car- nivorous, selfish, blood-thirsty. We find, in all the religions, “a God of armies,” a “jealous God,” an “avenging God,” a “destroying God,” a God who is pleased with carnage, and whom his worshippers consider it a duty to serve. Lambs, bulls, children, men, and women, are sacrificed to him. Zealous servants of this barbarous God think themselves obliged even to offer up themselves as a sacrifice to him. Madmen may every- where be seen, who, after meditating upon their terrible God, imagine that to please him they must inflict on themselves the most exquisite 76 Thoughts and Ways of Thinking torments. The gloomy ideas formed of the deity, far from consoling them, have every where disquieted their minds, and prejudiced follies destructive to happiness. How could the human mind progress, while tormented with frightful phantoms, and guided by men interested in perpetuating its ignorance and fears? Man has been forced to vegetate in his primitive stupidity: he has been taught stories about invisible powers upon whom his hap- piness was supposed to depend. Occupied solely by his fears, and by unintelligible reveries, he has always been at the mercy of priests, who have reserved to themselves the right of thinking for him, and of direct- ing his actions. Thus, man has remained a slave without courage, fearing to reason, and unable to extricate himself from the labyrinth in which he has been wandering. He believes himself forced under the yoke of his gods, known to him only by the fabulous accounts given by his minis- ters, who, after binding each unhappy mortal in the chains of prejudice, remain his masters, or else abandon him defenceless to the absolute power of tyrants, no less terrible than the gods, of whom they are the representatives. Oppressed by the double yoke of spiritual and temporal power, it has been impossible for the people to be happy.